Robert Blagojevich is on a book tour trying to sell the idea that former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was using him to secure a conviction of his brother, former Governor Rod Blagojevich.

What Robert fails to realize is that his book, "Fundraiser A", tells a completely different story.

In fact, Robert's book confirms for us that the prosecutors withheld damning evidence against him and his brother, Rod, from the jury and the American public.

Case in point: Robert states in his book that he was playing a "game of chicken" with prosecutors.

Here is an excerpt from Robert's book that proves that to be true:

"Day Nineteen: Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Noted in my journal this day:

'Mike [Ettinger] spoke with [Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid] Schar again this morning, Schar wanting to know if I was going to testify. Mike told him I was. Schar's response was that he had other tapes that haven't been played that he could play if he needed. Mike told him to bring it on. I told Mike I won't testify if they drop the charges against me. That was a nonstarter for Mike, he just looked at me. This means they are threatening to use more tapes to get me not to testify."

Normally prosecutors salivate over the prospect of a defendant taking the witness stand.

Ask yourself this: Why would a prosecutor threaten a defendant in hopes of preventing him from taking the stand?

Why would Robert think the prosecutors would drop the case against him rather than see him take the stand?

Well, Robert took the stand, and the prosecutor delivered on his threat, as illustrated by this excerpt from Sun Times reporter Natasha Korecki's book.

"Rob was convincing on direct examination. Next was cross-examination by Niewoehner, who tore into the pristine image Ettinger created. Rob stumbled as Niewoehner asked about a tape that hadn't been played - a November 5, 2008 discussion. 'If you can get Obama to get Fitzgerald to close the investigation on you, it completely provides you with total clarity,' Niewoeher qouted Rob telling his brother.

Rob testified that this exchange had nothing to do with [Valerie] Jarrett's appointment and that it was instead meant 'in context of what politicians do'. He seemed caught off guard, though, and the tension in the courtroom was palable. If the prosecution could do this to Rob in less than 15 minutes, what would they do to his brother?"

So Robert, the day after getting elected president, you and Rod thought Obama would get Fitzgerald to close the investigation just because that's "what politicians do"?

Really Robert? Don't you mean crooked politicians?

And Robert, do you really expect us to believe that asking Obama to get Fitzgerald to close the investigation on your brother had nothing to do with the offer to appoint Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate seat Obama vacated?

Like they say, let's go to the tape!

Here's a question that Fitzgerald was asked but he refused to answer.

Why did the prosecution not present such a damning recording in their case against Robert and Rod?

They obviously did not want that tape on record because it would implicate other well known politicians who were being protected by Fitzgerald.

If Robert did not take the stand, we would have never known that he and Rod had reason to believe Obama would call off Fitzgerald and close the investigation if Rod appointed Jarrett to the U.S Senate.

But Robert did take the stand and Fitzgerald's office met him head on by using a single quote from the wiretap tape that they are still withholding to this day. The quote the prosecutors used can only be found in trial transcripts due to the fact that they never entered the tape or transcripts of it into evidence.

Clearly both the prosecutors and the defendants in this case do not want the full contents of that wiretap tape to be made public. Thus the "game of chicken" Robert referred to in his book.

By the way Robert, you spent a good part of your book calling Patrick Fitzgerald a liar. While I do not disagree with you on that assertion, I would like to point out that when you say "you beat him at his own game" and you were playing a "game of chicken" with him, that you are in fact boasting that you're a better liar!

Since you like to play games Robert, how about we play a game of truth or dare?

If you won't tell the truth, I dare you to release the full transcript of that November 5, 2008 conversation between you and your brother.

Or would that take away the leverage that you are using to get Rod out of prison?

You might say Zorn had a "Gruber" moment, and like Jonathan Gruber, he hoped it would go un-noticed.

Here's what Zorn had to say about IP2P's reporting of what he said:

"Not that it matters, really, but I didn't know I was speaking on the record for 'Ernie Souchak,' the brave blogger who has adopted the pseudonym of a John Belushi character. Next time you might want to say you're seeking a quote for publication. Though scrolling through the last year's worth of entries there is not a single reader comment on any of the posts on this blog, so I'm not sure anyone is going to see what I said anyway."

So Zorn claims he thought he was speaking off the record when he said that the Tribune warned Blago.

And now that he's clearly on the record, he's hoping no one will see what he had to say.

Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn has come out in defense of his "hilarious" position that the phone callTribune reporter John Chase made to the Blagojevich camp on December 4, 2008 did not serve as a warning.

Zorn's reasoning: Blagojevich would have read that he was being recorded by the feds in a Tribune article the very next morning.

Zorn was asked:

"Do you understand that Robert and Rod canceled a meeting with Jesse Jackson Jr.'s money man, Raghuveer Nayak, due to Chase's phone call?"

He replied:

"And do you understand they would've canceled that meeting anyway because of what was in the paper that morning?"

So let me get this straight, Eric. Your contention is that John Chase's late night phone call did not warn Blago that the feds were recording him - but that the article the Tribune published the following morning did.

Ok, Eric, have it your way.

However, now that you have reluctantly conceded that the Chicago Tribune did in fact warn Robert and Rod Blagojevich, perhaps you can explain why former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was OK with the Trib's decision.

Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase went on record saying that the reason he made the late night phone call warning Rod Blagojevich that federal agents were recording him was because he "did not want to get scooped on the story".

Chase's ridiculous statement made it very clear that he was not expecting to be asked any common sense follow-up questions.

Big mistake, John!

Keep in mind that the Tribune had been cooperating for 2 months with U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's office and had agreed not to run a story about the wiretap on Blagojevich.

But when Chase was asked what happened on Dec. 4, 2008 for the Tribune to abruptly change from cooperating with the feds to exposing their wiretap, he was at a loss to give a coherent answer.

Chase was then asked if he or anyone else at the Tribune called Patrick Fitzgerald or anyone else at the U.S. Attorney's Office to let them know that the Tribune was going to expose their wiretap that night?

He was stumped, and refused to answer this simple yes or no question.

Here is why Chase could not answer that particular question.

If Chase had called Patrick Fitzgerald and informed him that the Tribune was now going to expose the feds' wiretap on Blago, wouldn't Fitz try to convince the Trib to wait just one more day?

After all, Blagojevich's brother, Robert, was scheduled to meet with Raghuveer Nayak, Jesse Jackson Jr's money man, to discuss the terms of Jackson's purchase of Barack Obama's U.S Senate seat the very next day.

Blagojevich and Jackson would both have been caught red-handed if Chase had not made that call warning Blago.

On the other hand, if Chase had not called the prosecutors office Fitzgerald would have been justifiably furious at the Tribune for derailing the biggest case of his career.

Even more telling: Chase did not deny that he knew Robert Blagojevich and Nayak were going to meet the next day before he made that late night phone call.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Chase is having a difficult time keeping track of his lies. In his book, "Golden", he contradicts himself by saying that he was chosen by Tribune editors to make the phone call to Blago.

So which is it, John?

Did you:

(A) make the call to inform Blago that the feds' were recording him because you wanted to be remembered as the reporter who blew Fitzgerald's case?

or

(B) make the call because your editors who had been cooperating with Fitzgerald told you to?

It's the simple questions that often prove to be the most difficult for liars to answer.

When Chicago Sun Times reporter Natasha Korecki was askedwhy she was not asking these questions, she replied: "No reporter wants to make another reporter look bad."

We at IP2P have every reason to believe the answer is very simple: it's a cry for help. Coen is experiencing his own version of the ageless Edger Allen Poe classic "Tell-Tale Heart" and it is taking its toll on him.

You see, Coen is living a big lie, and he fears his secret will soon be fully exposed.

Coen's troubles started when he agreed to fabricate stories surrounding the Blagojevich investigation and consequent trials.

From there, Coen sought to cash in on lies he was asked to tell by telling even bigger whoppers in a book.

You might remember that work of fiction: "Golden". You know, the one in which Coen and his co-author, John Chase, claimed they had copies of all the Blagojevich wiretap recordings and that they had listened to all of the them.

Well as those lies have begun to unravel, so has Jeffrey.

The thought of being exposed for writing a book filled with lies has been weighing heavily on Coen's mind. (We know this for a fact. ) And there is areal possibility that Coen has come to realize that being exposed as a habitual liaris inevitable.

The fear of beingfound out resulted in Coen's obvious mental breakdown, causing him to go ballistic on a CTA train.

Let's all hope that Jeff accepts the counseling that has been offered to him, and heeds the wisdom of another ageless classic, "The truth will set you free", before it is too late and he seriously hurts someone.

Blagojevich attorney Michael Ettinger was caught on a wiretap trying to bribe a cop in order to fix a criminal case in Illinois.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
John GERVASI, Michael Ettinger, and Charles Soteras, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM T. HART, District Judge.

The August 1982 Grand Jury returned a seven count indictment against the defendants John Gervasi ("Gervasi"), Michael Ettinger ("Ettinger"), and Charles Soteras ("Soteras"), charging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343 and 1952. Gervasi and Ettinger are attorneys admitted to practice in the State of Illinois. In 1977, Soteras was a defendant in a criminal case in the Circuit Court of Cook County, charged with car theft. Gervasi and Ettinger represented Soteras on the car theft charge.

The federal indictment alleges that the three defendants conspired to bribe a police officer, Daniel Furay ("Furay"), to arrange for the dismissal of the car theft charges against Soteras. The defendants have filed a number of pretrial motions attacking the indictment, and also have moved to suppress key evidence in the case. All of the parties have filed excellent briefs in support of their positions. The Court rules on these motions as follows.

Michael Ettinger was caught so red-handed, all he could do was argue to suppress the evidence of the wiretap transcripts in his criminal case.

Well, it being Chicago, coupled with the fact that Ettinger was represented by a team of the Chicago Mob's favorite lawyers - Samuel V.P. Banks, Edward Genson, Jeffrey B. Steinback - Ettinger did escape going to prison.

However, he did not entirely escape consequences.

After a long, drawn-out-battle, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) had no choice but to suspend Michael D. Ettinger's law license for two years.

ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD

Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings:

Case(s) below are identified by caption and Commission case number. If there is more than one case, the cases are listed in an order from most recent to oldest. A case may have more than one disposition or more than one component to a disposition, in which situation each disposition and component is also listed separately within that case record, again in an order from most recent to oldest.

Click on Rules and Decisions ("R & D") to access any documents regarding this lawyer that are in Rules and Decisions. R & D contains all disciplinary opinions of the Supreme Court and most other Court orders and board reports issued since 1990. If R & D does not contain the decision that you are seeking, contact the Commission's Clerk's office for assistance. Contact information for the Clerk's office is available at Office Hours.

In re Michael David Ettinger, 86CH0175

Disposition: Suspension for a specified period

Effective Date of Disposition: April 21, 1989
End Date of Disposition: April 21, 1991

Definition of Disposition: Suspension for a specified period reflects a determination that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct and that the misconduct warrants an interruption of the lawyer's authority to practice law during the suspension period, which is a fixed period of time identified in the Supreme Court's order. The lawyer is not authorized to practice law during the period of the suspension.

After his suspension, it did not take Ettinger long to reunite with his old pal, Ed Genson.

In 1993 Ettinger joined Genson and his band of cohorts in representing a couple of their fellow Chicago lawyers who, like Ettinger, had a proclivity to participate in the illegal practice of fixing court cases. Ettinger, Genson, and the fellas represented Judge Adam Stillo Sr. and his nephew, attorney Joseph Stillo in a case that featured FBI informant Robert Cooley as the prosecution's star witness.

U.S. v. STILLO

NOS. 94-2678, 94-2679.

On July 29, 1993, a jury found Judge Adam Stillo guilty of racketeering and, along with his nephew, lawyer Joseph Stillo, conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right. Both counts were based on Judge Stillo's corruption of the Cook County, Illinois, Circuit Court. Defendants appeal their convictions. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Defense attorney Robert Cooley first met Judge Stillo at a party in 1976. Cooley asked the judge whom he should see to fix a criminal case assigned to Judge Stillo. Judge Stillo, knowing that Cooley was a frequent supplier of bribes to other judges and public officials, told Cooley that he would deal with him directly. Not long after the party, Judge Stillo accepted a bribe from Cooley to fix a misdemeanor case. Judge Stillo met with Cooley before trial and agreed to find Cooley's client not guilty. After the trial Cooley met with Judge Stillo in his chambers. Cooley asked the judge whether $100 was an appropriate payment. Judge Stillo responded: "Whatever you think" and accepted the $100 in cash.

Considering Michael Ettinger's past and his unique set of friends, is it really plausible that Ettenger did not know that Invest Financial Corporation, a company that Robert Blagojevich was CEO of, was investing money for Betty Loren Maltese and the town of Cicero?

"[She] never one time wavered in her belief in me and worked real hard in doing transcriptions of the tapes, when I could not bear to listen to them. She would sit there with the headphones on so I didn’t have to listen, and she would transcribe for hours and hours" Robert said.

When asked if all copies of Julie's transcripts were also given to the federal prosecutors, Robert refused to answer.

What does "come clean" mean? Confess to his preacher, priest, rabbi or imam?

Korecki now wants Times readers to believe that it was by luck, and not by design, that Chicago was cheated out of the opportunity to learn about Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s.(J.J.,Jr.) attempt to buy the senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

Attention Natasha, there’s good news:

J.J., Jr. can still be indicted for attempting to bribe Robert and Rod Blagojevich.

And that good news gets better: Robert Blagojevich is now willing to co-operate with the feds and help prove J.J., Jr.’s role in the attempted bribery. Yes, that’s right, Natasha. The time is ripe to harvest the truth.

So, will the Times join IP2P and Robert Blagojevich in their call for acting U.S. Attorney Gary Shapiro to indict Jesse Jackson Jr.?

Gary S. Shapiro

We await your response. But, realistically, we only expect to hear the sound of crickets.

Why?

Because the Chicago Sun Times, and its faux reporters, are complicit in the Chicagogate cover-up as the once-credible, dead-tree news outlet continues to mislead it readers about the Blagojevich saga.

Robert Blagojevich has come clean during an interview with CNSNews.comreporter Barbara Hollingsworth. Blagojevich told Hollingsworth that Jesse Jackson, Jr. offered a "bribe" to him and his brother, Rod Blagojevich, for the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

And, that it's time for the U.S. Attorney of the Northern District of Illinois to charge him with that crime.

Well, it doesn't get any simpler than that, folks.

Robert Blagojevich just handed Jesse Jackson, Jr. to the feds on a silver platter for attempting to purchase a seat in the U.S. Senate.